[arin-discuss] use of 22.214.171.124/16 not clear
morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Thu Sep 24 15:23:07 EDT 2009
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2009 Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:12 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> > I also agree with the point that there are several legacy /8s
>> > assigned to large corporations, that in todays world just don't
>> > seem right. However, I not sure what can be done about it,
>> I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your note here, I do wonder how
>> the above was arrived at? Let's look at Apple for instance (who have
>> 17/8 at least). There are several ways I can see that they may easily
>> justify usage for this allocation.
> Its more an impression many people have, I very much don't
> want to create a witch hunt, as I said in a previous post.
> But lets run the number for Apple since you brought them up;
> With a little Googling, Fortune says Apple has about 16,000
> employees. Well their /8 gives them about 16,000,000 IPs,
> that is about 1000 IPs per employee. I'm not saying they
> should have to go down to /18 or anything. But, if they gave
> back a /9 they would still have 500 address per employee.
There's more in this world than people... apple has some significant
compute infrastructure, testing infra, compile farms, hosting
platforms, at least voip/iphone(s)/laptop/desktop per employee. Simply
saying, on a public list, 'a /8 is far more than a company could need
evah' is disingenuous.
Again, I think we agree, I really wanted to get straight that 'its not
simple and from the outside it's very hard to tell what a company is
doing with the assets allocated to them.' (never mind the 'sure we
can give back a /16 worth of space, how do we renumber things to make
that happen without losing too much productivity??')
More information about the ARIN-discuss